M&J Group: What Is Proven and What Is Still Under Investigation?
The critical distinction between regulatory findings and open allegations.
Last verified: 5 October 2026
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
The penalties described on this website concern failures to comply with CMA investigative requirements during an inspection.
The separate CMA investigation into suspected bid-rigging remains ongoing.
The CMA has expressly stated that no assumption should currently be made that competition law has been infringed.
This page separates what has been established by the CMA from what remains under investigation and what has not been established. This distinction is the core editorial principle of this publication.
Established CMA Findings
- ✓A work mobile phone was removed during the CMA inspection of M&J's premises.
- ✓Paperwork was removed during the CMA inspection.
- ✓Estimating Director Barry Pirrie instructed Office Manager Tracey Woods to remove the phone and paperwork.
- ✓Barry Pirrie told investigators he did not have a work mobile phone — a statement the CMA found to be false.
- ✓The phone and paperwork were returned later the same day.
- ✓Administrative penalties were imposed: M&J £25,000, Pirrie £20,000, Woods £5,000.
Ongoing Investigation
- ?Suspected bid-rigging.
- ?Possible anti-competitive arrangements.
- ?Public and private-sector construction contracts.
- ?School-related roofing services.
Not Established
- ✗Final cartel infringement.
- ✗Criminal wrongdoing.
- ✗Rigging of any specific identified contract unless later established.
The penalties for evidence concealment are legally distinct from the underlying bid-rigging investigation. The obstruction penalties do not prove the underlying cartel allegation.